- Dec 20, 2003
- 13,596
- 2,659
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It comes down to results.
Critic of science to scientist: "Why do you persist in your methodological naturalism?"
Scientist: "It works."
Critic of science: "Why don't you use my mystical insights in your work?"
Scientist: "They don't work."
If supernatural assumptions worked, scientists would use them no matter who objected. But they don't work. And that's all that matters.
You do not have to assume supernatural assumptions to know that materialistic reductionism does not really explain anything for sure, hence the reference to Nagel earlier. I have no reason to trust your guesswork over anyone else really when it comes to the big speculative models.
Sorry, that's wrong. For a lot of reasons. First, "proof" is not part of science. It merely gathers evidence to the point that denial is foolish.
Scientists accept the Big Bang because it explains what we see, and numerous predictions of the theory have been repeatedly verified. Macroevolution has been directly observed. Even many creationists now admit the fact of new species, genera, and sometimes families. And since God Himself says that the earth brought forth living things, it seems odd for a proclaimed Christian do deny abiogenesis. Do you trust God's account of creation or do you think creationism has adequate evidence to overthrow that?
You define science as something that cannot necessarily be proven by the scientific method without really understanding how ludicrous that sounds. Macroevolution has not been directly observed and especially since we have not been observing it over the millions of years required to verify its results. Microevolution has been observed and then conclusions generalized. Uniformitarianism is another assumption here that is unverifiable by the scientific method.
The definition of species is quite crucial to the admission of new ones. There were not 23 species of sparrows on the ark but they are all sparrows.
It was God who brought forth living things from the earth, not the earth that birthed them. In the same way, he could turn stones into the sons of Abraham should he so choose (Mt 3:9). There is a difference. Abiogenesis is suggesting that physics and chemistry can birth biological life, which is demonstrably unproven and false. But I see your link between Deism and naturalism there since God is not involved in your theory of the development of life but rather sets up the scene in which life could begin in the distant first place.
I trust God's account of creation quite literally but do not consider anyone to have enough evidence to prove or disprove it. The scientific method just does not work for origins.
Upvote
0